This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
KeepChurches in Italy is the correct name. Commons uses the preposition in for near all building categories, and the matching category in the English Wikipedia is en:Category:Churches in Italy. It's very inconvenient to keep different forms of category names in the project. So, all items in Category:Churches of Italy have to be moved to this one, and so on for its subcategories. --Juiced lemon01:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not important if the categories are called in or of, but it's important to have just one cat. So please use the already existing cat. Cat-rename should be done by a bot only and for all countries. Currently 90% of the churches are in the of scheme. Please stick to this till a consensus is found. I see the need for a change since eg. churches are in the of scheme but buildings mostly in. That makes no sense. --Ikiwaner11:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe is in better. My mother tongue is not English, therefore I don't know if Churches in Italy sounds better like Churches of Italy. If I translated this words into German (in = in, of = von), in would be better.--Bo-rhein-sieg13:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ack Bohreinsieg. Oxford Dictionary says: of followed by a n: belonging to something, being part of something. in as a prep: indicating place, a point within the area or space of sth. Therefore in would be better for all buildings. I vote for renaming all cats in the tree of Category:Churches by country to Category:Churches in xxx using User:Orgullobot
I don't really care about the category's name (I think "in Italy" is better though), but I do care about having more than one category for the exact same thing. Even a redirect is a bad idea because people will continue to put pictures in the wrong cat, spliting the same kind of media in two different places. Dantadd19:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When a category name is incorrect, people will continue to categorize pictures with the correct category name and will (re)create the category if necessary (you can't do anything about it).
Regarding the preposition choice, consider “embassies of Germany” and “embassies in Germany”. Do you intuitively understand the difference?
2 links to help you:
The U.S. Embassy in Berlin (sic): According to Commons rules, we would say: “The embassy of the United States in Berlin”
I also think that the preposition in is the best choice for building categories in Commons, because it is widely used for building categories, and so we'll have less work to standardize the category names. --Juiced lemon20:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Today, I've still overheard this talk. It confirms that the of preposition suggests special features according to the place. With the current categorization of the en:Königsberg Cathedral, we could logically expect a Russian architecture, not only a location in this country. Therefore, I also think that “in Russia” would be better. Locations can be easily checked, then origins are controversial subjects: we don't need extra causes for argument. --Juiced lemon11:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you agree with the proposal of standardizing religious buildings categories with the preposition in, we are only 3 or 4 persons to take the decision. Is it sufficient to proceed this change?
I also prefer "in", but English is not my mother tongue, therefore it's not a "good" opinion. Anyway, the matter here lies in not having two categories for the exact same thing. Dantadd15:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The matching category is en:Category:Churches in Italy in the English Wikipedia; in is still used for all buildings categories. Therefore, we may assume that “Churches in Italy” is correct and comprehensive English.
In Commons, the issue is: Must we standardize or not the form of category names for all buildings?
Standardization allows to save a considerable amount of time when you categorize a media file, because you don't have to verify the category name.
It has be done recently for rivers. Now, the form for a river category is “Rivers of location”. So, if you have a new river to categorize, you search this river in the English Wikipedia, and you copy the bottom line with the category names. Then, you past this line in the new category and select the categories you want. When you get a red link like Category:Rivers of Kiribati, you need not to check if there is already a category for this subject. Anyway, if such category exists, it will be moved. --Juiced lemon16:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two months ago, I listed here some categories to rename, and nothing has yet happened. If you can boost the process, I'll list the categories to rename tomorrow (only countries). --Juiced lemon18:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now we have what I wanted to avoid: Some Churches cats with of and some with in :-( Is there no admin around who could rename cats? --Ikiwaner17:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I gave the priority to the standardization of country categories, because Category:Churches by country is a reference when somebody create a new category about churches. I made a request here.
Keep Churches in Italy is the correct name. Commons uses the preposition in for near all building categories, and the matching category in the English Wikipedia is en:Category:Churches in Italy. It's very inconvenient to keep different forms of category names in the project. So, all items in Category:Churches of Italy have to be moved to this one, and so on for its subcategories. --Juiced lemon 01:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete It's not important if the categories are called in or of, but it's important to have just one cat. So please use the already existing cat. Cat-rename should be done by a bot only and for all countries. Currently 90% of the churches are in the of scheme. Please stick to this till a consensus is found. I see the need for a change since eg. churches are in the of scheme but buildings mostly in. That makes no sense. --Ikiwaner 11:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Bo-rhein-sieg 11:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Bo-rhein-sieg 13:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
